Shepard fairey New Large Format Prints

[tuumi]

Well said and I agree 100%. If any of us had our fudge taken we would be requesting the same. Returning stolen goods to the owner is the right thing to do. Get your money back from the thief that took it in the first place. Unfortunately, that may require court.

Sockpuppets have no relevance to the discussion. Regardless of the identity of the poster the point is still valid. Given the shady fudge taking place lately making this right would be a good thing.

[analogtrash]

I edited that post before anyone started talking fudge about me... again.

But, if that's how the game is played, and value is found in who has the most posts, then here we go.

This is what was originally posted...

John is an alright guy who made a bad decision and has owned up to his mistake; let's let it go at that. The owners of the prints are in the process of getting the prints back from the people who purchased them. If they are not relinquished, other actions will be taken to get them back. This does not end with John. He sold them on Craigslist; that person took them to Boston and sold them to ipath2003, who then flipped them for a quick buck to Fluffhead13 (edited by moderator - posting personal information is a violation of the EB Member Policy) and Blazedoutbee (all active on this forum). The owners of the prints intend to get them back in one fashion or another and destroy them... Jon has agreed to cooperate with all parties to help make this right...

John is a hired gun; a talented printer in his own right that is hired on a contract basis to help out when the studio is short handed. He is hired to work at Modern Multiples and has nothing to do directly with Shepard.

Shepard Fairey fans can rest assured that the theft has been contained and is in process of being resolved.

Maybe you should sue--I hear you are good at that: http://forum.thegiant.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14192

I think that a lot of people give Daniel (jetset) a bad rap. I have had several dealings with him that were conducted with care and professionalism. He obviously works with some prestigious people and is friends with some very talented artists. Here he is just trying to shed light on this mishap and help to resolve it per the instructions of the rightful owners of the prints under question. A lot of the threads that have concerned Daniel both here and on thegiant basically end up with a snowball effect involving negative comments from people who have never even had an experience with him. People in these forums like to hop on the bandwagon and sling unwarranted insults around without consequence. This is not an endorsement (anyone considering business with any merchant needs to make that decision based on the facts at hand. The good and the bad need to be evaluated in full); I just wanted to point out that he has shown the capacity to be a contributive member to at least one person, and I see no reason for anyone to insult him in this current discussion.

Also, that was a great first post Art Bomb. I feel that is a pretty accurate summary of events.

[ArtBomb]

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]

The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.

The earliest known usage of the term was on July 9, 1993 by Dana Rollins in a posting to bit.listserv.fnord-l,[3] but the term was not in common usage in USENET groups until 1996.

For the record:

I am not a "sockpuppet". My name is William Barber, and I've been collecting Shepard's artwork for about 3-4 years now. I can be contacted directly via PM. I am happy to discuss my views with anyone who cares to talk about it.

I've done a lot of studying on the commodification of art. The book that I recommend the most is "The Social Life of Things" by Arjun Appadurai. I read it about 5 years ago, and it put alot of things in perspective for me about the value/commodity relationship and how value changes as things travel through time and space...

I just wanted to give the artist some much needed support in this one. I'll go back to lurking now...

edited to remove the line: "Alot of you guys are rotten". That wasn't fair, and I apologize.

[tuumi]

Tact...get some. Clearly youhaven't even been lurking here. Most people here a.re great people and willing to help others

[analogtrash]

Tact...get some. Clearly youhaven't even been lurking here. Most people here a.re great people and willing to help others

I'm not so sure. There are definitely a lot of good people here, but there are also an awful lot of people on here that don't care at all about a single other member of the forum. The common ground is that this site can be a great reference point for collectors. But here you are among friends, enemies, competitors, egoists; the list goes on. What was wrong about his post, other than the fact that it may have struck a nerve by appearing to slightly favor the opposition? How would you summarize the events that have built this thread? For the record I am not trying to attack anyone in particular with this post, these are not sarcastic or provocative questions. I'm not trying to gain enemies; I like the good people on this board too which I believe to include you tuumi .

[iratasan]

Tact...get some. Clearly youhaven't even been lurking here. Most people here a.re great people and willing to help others

I'm not so sure. There are definitely a lot of good people here, but there are also an awful lot of people on here that don't care at all about a single other member of the forum. The common ground is that this site can be a great reference point for collectors. But here you are among friends, enemies, competitors, egoists; the list goes on. What was wrong about his post, other than the fact that it may have struck a nerve by appearing to slightly favor the opposition? How would you summarize the events that have built this thread? For the record I am not trying to attack anyone in particular with this post, these are not sarcastic or provocative questions. I'm not trying to gain enemies; I like the good people on this board too .

mostly true, but the posts of this dude didn't contain any solid arguments, but on the other hand enough accusations.

if somebody steals my trash , sells it and the people buying it are happy with it then i would be happy for them and spare myself the drama. simple common sense. if the guy knew that it was against the will of the artist then he should be fired, but going after the fans that bought it? that really shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?

[analogtrash]

mostly true, but the posts of this dude didn't contain any solid arguments, but on the other hand enough accusations.

if somebody steals my trash , sells it and the people buying it are happy with it then i would be happy for them and spare myself the drama. simple common sense. if the guy knew that it was against the will of the artist then he should be fired, but going after the fans that bought it? that really shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?

I do agree with your point that the fans should not be attacked for buying. This was happening a lot to blazed over at thegiant and it is the same sort of unwarranted insult slinging that jetset has had to deal with. I believe that the buyers who intend to display them have done nothing wrong. However, I think that it is a valid point that because the artist and publisher are requesting the return of these test prints, it would be a noble decision in good faith to meet that request. I would not judge the buyers if they chose not to return the prints...but as a collector who has gained so much from the artist in the past, I would feel obligated to return prints which were stolen and then sold to me.

[mondiablue]

Well said and I agree 100%. If any of us had our fudge taken we would be requesting the same. Returning stolen goods to the owner is the right thing to do. Get your money back from the thief that took it in the first place. Unfortunately, that may require court.

Sockpuppets have no relevance to the discussion. Regardless of the identity of the poster the point is still valid. Given the shady fudge taking place lately making this right would be a good thing.

I agree. And people here need to stop spreading the blame in a vain attempt to make situations "fair", or to avoid responsibility alltogether. Give the sh*t back.

[iratasan]

mostly true, but the posts of this dude didn't contain any solid arguments, but on the other hand enough accusations.

if somebody steals my trash , sells it and the people buying it are happy with it then i would be happy for them and spare myself the drama. simple common sense. if the guy knew that it was against the will of the artist then he should be fired, but going after the fans that bought it? that really shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?

I do agree with your point that the fans should not be attacked for buying. This was happening a lot to blazed over at thegiant and it is the same sort of unwarranted insult slinging that jetset has had to deal with. I believe that the buyers who intend to display them have done nothing wrong. However, I think that it is a valid point that because the artist and publisher are requesting the return of these test prints, it would be a noble decision in good faith to meet that request. I would not judge the buyers if they chose not to return the prints...but as a collector who has gained so much from the artist in the past, I would feel obligated to return prints which were stolen and then sold to me.

the problem with that logic is that according to the artist those are not prints, those are garbage. if we would be talking about stolen copies of let's say duality 3 then things would be different, but even then the most compensation for the artist that i would think would be reasonable would be to request that lost income back from the guy that stole it in the first place. it would be ridiculous to ask the buyers to give them back to use them in an onsale. funny enough the prints we are talking about here are requested back to be destroyed. how can we even say "he gave those people so much, he deserves their loyalty"? we don't even know that. let's say one of them got lucky on 2 onsales and bought the rest of his stuff for $4k on the aftermarket. should he then just return 1 print outta the bunch? i think it's cool for you that in your particular case the whole thang is ballanced, but other people might even be happy as hell to even get a shitty testprint as they won't have the chance at the real deal. those chances are created by shep. not willingly i guess, but it's his system.

it comes down to the basics here, really. somebody stole my trash and i want it back so the garbagemen can take it away as it was supposed to be, even though who has it now is enjoying it. no matter who's gonna suffer through my behaviour. to say it even more drastic: "i would rather sue all of your asses so i can destroy it rather than see you enjoying it".

Well said and I agree 100%. If any of us had our fudge taken we would be requesting the same. Returning stolen goods to the owner is the right thing to do. Get your money back from the thief that took it in the first place. Unfortunately, that may require court.

Sockpuppets have no relevance to the discussion. Regardless of the identity of the poster the point is still valid. Given the shady fudge taking place lately making this right would be a good thing.

I agree. And people here need to stop spreading the blame in a vain attempt to make situations "fair", or to avoid responsibility alltogether. Give the sh*t back.

wrong. according to shep, this belongs to the garbagecan, which now should be the legitimate owner. but who knows, maybe there ain't no plan to destroy them after all. this is starting to reek suspicious.

[mondiablue]

mostly true, but the posts of this dude didn't contain any solid arguments, but on the other hand enough accusations.

if somebody steals my trash , sells it and the people buying it are happy with it then i would be happy for them and spare myself the drama. simple common sense. if the guy knew that it was against the will of the artist then he should be fired, but going after the fans that bought it? that really shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?

I do agree with your point that the fans should not be attacked for buying. This was happening a lot to blazed over at thegiant and it is the same sort of unwarranted insult slinging that jetset has had to deal with. I believe that the buyers who intend to display them have done nothing wrong. However, I think that it is a valid point that because the artist and publisher are requesting the return of these test prints, it would be a noble decision in good faith to meet that request. I would not judge the buyers if they chose not to return the prints...but as a collector who has gained so much from the artist in the past, I would feel obligated to return prints which were stolen and then sold to me.

the problem with that logic is that according to the artist those are not prints, those are garbage. if we would be talking about stolen copies of let's say duality 3 then things would be different, but even then the most compensation for the artist that i would think would be reasonable would be to request that lost income back from the guy that stole it in the first place. it would be ridiculous to ask the buyers to give them back to use them in an onsale. funny enough the prints we are talking about here are requested back to be destroyed. how can we even say "he gave those people so much, he deserves their loyalty"? we don't even know that. let's say one of them got lucky on 2 onsales and bought the rest of his stuff for $4k on the aftermarket. should he then just return 1 print outta the bunch? i think it's cool for you that in your particular case the whole thang is ballanced, but other people might even be happy as hell to even get a shitty testprint as they won't have the chance at the real deal. those chances are created by shep. not willingly i guess, but it's his system.

it comes down to the basics here, really. somebody stole my trash and i want it back so the garbagemen can take it away as it was supposed to be, even though who has it now is enjoying it. no matter who's gonna suffer through my behaviour. to say it even more drastic: "i would rather sue all of your asses so i can destroy it rather than see you enjoying it".

Well said and I agree 100%. If any of us had our fudge taken we would be requesting the same. Returning stolen goods to the owner is the right thing to do. Get your money back from the thief that took it in the first place. Unfortunately, that may require court.

Sockpuppets have no relevance to the discussion. Regardless of the identity of the poster the point is still valid. Given the shady fudge taking place lately making this right would be a good thing.

I agree. And people here need to stop spreading the blame in a vain attempt to make situations "fair", or to avoid responsibility alltogether. Give the sh*t back.

wrong. according to shep, this belongs to the garbagecan, which now should be the legitimate owner. but who knows, maybe there ain't no plan to destroy them after all. this is starting to reek suspicious.

No, I am sure there is protocol regarding "trash" (specifically in quotes).

[iratasan]

No, I am sure there is protocol regarding "trash" (specifically in quotes).

so?

[electrachrome]

it comes down to the basics here, really. somebody stole my trash and i want it back so the garbagemen can take it away as it was supposed to be, even though who has it now is enjoying it. no matter who's gonna suffer through my behaviour. to say it even more drastic: "i would rather sue all of your asses so i can destroy it rather than see you enjoying it".


wrong. according to shep, this belongs to the garbagecan, which now should be the legitimate owner. but who knows, maybe there ain't no plan to destroy them after all. this is starting to reek suspicious.

it comes down to what the artist wants his represented body of work to be. He doesn't want trash/test prints out in the marketplace. I think they should be returned out of simple principle. I realize there is also $ involved, so some sort of restitution from the dude who clipped them from the printer is in order.

[iratasan]

it comes down to the basics here, really. somebody stole my trash and i want it back so the garbagemen can take it away as it was supposed to be, even though who has it now is enjoying it. no matter who's gonna suffer through my behaviour. to say it even more drastic: "i would rather sue all of your asses so i can destroy it rather than see you enjoying it".


wrong. according to shep, this belongs to the garbagecan, which now should be the legitimate owner. but who knows, maybe there ain't no plan to destroy them after all. this is starting to reek suspicious.

it comes down to what the artist wants his represented body of work to be. He doesn't want trash/test prints out in the marketplace. I think they should be returned out of simple principle. I realize there is also $ involved, so some sort of restitution from the dude who clipped them from the printer is in order.

yeah, that's what the artist WANTS, but it doesn't make the fact that he DEMANDS the prints back less ridiculous. presupposing that the final buyers didn't know that the prints/trash was stolen the right thing to do would be to get in contact with them and OFFER them something cool as a replacement. the way things are dealt in this case is rather hostyle behaviour against his fans. should be guy be punished that stole them in the first place? sure.

[electrachrome]

it comes down to what the artist wants his represented body of work to be. He doesn't want trash/test prints out in the marketplace. I think they should be returned out of simple principle. I realize there is also $ involved, so some sort of restitution from the dude who clipped them from the printer is in order.

yeah, that's what the artist WANTS, but it doesn't make the fact that he DEMANDS the prints back less ridiculous. presupposing that the final buyers didn't know that the prints/trash was stolen the right thing to do would be to get in contact with them and OFFER them something cool as a replacement. the way things are dealt in this case is rather hostyle behaviour against his fans. should be guy be punished that stole them in the first place? sure.

his book is call Supply and Demand.
I also would think if it's that important, Studio # One could offer something in exchange, though like paying ransom, it's legitimizing extortion. these dudes payed like $50 for test prints...new releases drop for around $50 initially. maybe not as kool as having a rare one color on newsprint, but karma doesn't have a price tag.
I don't know, it's not my fight. I just know that i would do the right thing and return any stolen prints whether I was compensated for it or not.

[iratasan]

it comes down to what the artist wants his represented body of work to be. He doesn't want trash/test prints out in the marketplace. I think they should be returned out of simple principle. I realize there is also $ involved, so some sort of restitution from the dude who clipped them from the printer is in order.

yeah, that's what the artist WANTS, but it doesn't make the fact that he DEMANDS the prints back less ridiculous. presupposing that the final buyers didn't know that the prints/trash was stolen the right thing to do would be to get in contact with them and OFFER them something cool as a replacement. the way things are dealt in this case is rather hostyle behaviour against his fans. should be guy be punished that stole them in the first place? sure.

his book is call Supply and Demand.
I also would think if it's that important, Studio # One could offer something in exchange, though like paying ransom, it's legitimizing extortion. these dudes payed like $50 for test prints...new releases drop for around $50 initially. maybe not as kool as having a rare one color on newsprint, but karma doesn't have a price tag.
I don't know, it's not my fight. I just know that i would do the right thing and return any stolen prints whether I was compensated for it or not.

that's true.

i totally agree to that.

it's not my fight either, you know me. i don't even care much for shep's stuff, but some peoples logic in this thread went completely to the shitter and being a huge fan of common sense i had to step in. i gotta say that in this very case i wouldn't return them unless i'd get a cool trade as exchange or if shep contacted me personally, explaining the situation and politely ASKING me to please give em back.